Santram Atumal Murjani, V. Deputy Commisssioner of Income-Tax ,

ITA 2456/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1533 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, P UNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM / ITA NO.2456/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SANTRAM ATUMAL MURJANI, C/O. SHRI SURESH N. OTWANI, ADVOCATE 109, 110, TILSON SHOPPING CENTRE, KALYAN AMBERNATH ROAD, ULHASNAGAR-421 003. PAN : AFCPM0008H ....... / APPELLANT ! / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NANDED. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH OTWANI REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI / DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.03.2019 ' / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, AURANGABAD DATED 10.08.2016 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DE ALS IN READYMADE GARMENTS AND ALSO DEALS IN CLOTH IN NAME & STYLE OF M/S.P OONAM READYMADE 2 ITA NO. 2456/PUN/2016 A.Y.2007-08 & POONAM CLOTH EMPORIUM RESPECTIVELY AND DERIVES INCOME FROM THE SAID BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.7,97,020/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH AUDIT R EPORT U/S.44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AS ITS ENCLOSURES. THE SAID RETURN WAS DULY PROCESSED ON 07.02 .2008. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PER THE LATEST NORMS LAID DOWN B Y THE BOARD AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT WITH THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.18,63,900/- BY MAKING VARIO US ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES AS APPEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED FIGURE OF PURCHASES AT RS.30,29,318/- INSTEAD OF RS.25,95,507 /- WHICH WAS TAKEN IN THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT SUBMITTED DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION IN RESPECT OF POONAM CLOTH EMPORIUM. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WORKED OUT THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 1,64,090/- ONLY INSTEAD OF RS.5,97,901/- AS WORKED OUT IN THE COURS E OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE CREDIT FOR RS.2,02,585/-, WH ICH WAS THE TOTAL OF THOSE BILLS WHICH WERE NUMBERED AND STAMPED BY THE SURVEY PARTY . BUT NOT CONSIDERED IN TOTALING OF THE PURCHASES AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED PURCHASE BILLS O F RS.2,97,884/- AND STATED THAT THESE BILLS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE S URVEY PREMISES ON THE DATE OF SURVEY BUT HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED FOR WORKING ON THE EXCESS STOCK IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION. THE AS SESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOU ND THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD NOT NUMBERED OR STAMPED THE BILLS WHICH W ERE NOW BEING PRODUCED. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT P OINTED OUT THIS FACT OF THE SURVEY PARTY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVE Y ACTION AND HAD NOT BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OR ANY OTHER HIGHER AUTHORITY WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD A FTER THE DATE OF SURVEY ACTION OR EVEN BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN O F INCOME. IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PURCHASE BILLS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE PAYMENT AGAIN ST THESE PURCHASES BILLS WAS SHOWN IN CASH. FURTHER, THE TEN TATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT AND INVENTORY OF STOCK PREPARED BY THE SURV EY PARTY HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND HAD ALSO BEEN CERTIFIED AS CORRECT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE WORKING OF THE EXCESS STOCK AND INVENTORY OF TH E STOCK CERTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEED INGS THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WAS DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF T HE AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE PURCHASE BILLS WERE AVAILABLE I N THE BUSINESS 3 ITA NO. 2456/PUN/2016 A.Y.2007-08 PREMISES OF THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF WORKING OUT THE REAL PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES OF POONAM REA DYMADE STORES, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SU RVEY PARTY HAD NOT CONSIDERED CLOTH PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,56,846/- DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD NOT INVENTORISED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS MAINTAINED ON THE COMPUTER. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THESE FACTS ARE NOT BRO UGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF SURVEYOR WITHIN REASONABLE PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY. IT WAS NOTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THAT THESE PURCHAS E BILLS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OR RECORDED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION. IT WAS FURTH ER NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUN T WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE INVENTORY-OF STOCK PREPARED BY THE SURVEY PARTY HAD BEEN VERIFIED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND CERTIFIED AS S UCH BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CERTIFIED INVENTORY AND PURCHASES, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. HENCE HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT SOME AMOUNT OF PURCHASES WERE REMAINED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND HE DID NOT ACCEPT T HE CONTENTION MADE BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASES HAVE BEEN RECORDED LESS BY RS.4,56,848/- DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 3. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF ASSES SING OFFICER PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND CONSIDERING THE SAME ALONG WITH FACTS OF THE CASE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AND EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE NOT BE EN SUBMITTED AND WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED EVEN AT T HE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FIRST AND FOREMOST IT NEEDS TO BE STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNTS W HICH WERE RECORDED IN THE INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE SURVEY PARTY BUT A RITHMETICAL MISTAKES HAD CREPT IN INASMUCH AS THE TOTAL WAS INCORRECTLY DONE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INCONGRUITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN ADDRESSING TO THE CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE AS FAR AS TOTALLING ER ROR IS CONCERNED. HOWEVER, IT IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE EXISTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND FOR WHICH CREDIT WAS NOT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THA T THE ENTIRE MATTER HINGES AROUND. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT CREDIT SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN FOR THE ALLEGED PURCHASES WHICH WERE EITHE R RECORDED IN THE COMPUTER OR FOR WHICH BILLS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE T IME OF SURVEY. IN THIS RESPECT IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AL READY CERTIFIED THAT THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED BY THE SURVEY PA RTY IS CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE KNEW THAT HE WAS MAINTAINING HIS BOOKS ON TALLY SYSTEM IN THE COMPUTERS. IF THAT WAS SO THEN IT WAS HIS DUTY TO R EMIND THE ATTENTION OF 4 ITA NO. 2456/PUN/2016 A.Y.2007-08 THE SURVEY PARTY TO THIS FACT. IF THE PURCHASES WER E RECORDED ON COMPUTER, NO ONE HAD PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM BRINGING THE FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SURVEY PARTY. THE SAME ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN T AKEN IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE BILLS WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY NOT RECORDE D BY THE SURVEY PARTY. NOTHING HAD ALSO PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM BRINGING THESE LACUNAE TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR T HE HIGHER AUTHORITIES AND THE DEPARTMENT AFTER THE SURVEY WAS OVER. UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTEMPORANEOUS. MER ELY PRODUCTION OF SOME PURCHASE BILLS WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE EXISTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IF THE BILLS WERE AVAILABLE, THE SA ME SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAV E BROUGHT IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SURVEY PARTY BY PRINTING THE NECESSAR Y ACCOUNTS FROM THE COMPUTER AND PRODUCING THE SAME. IF THESE BILLS WER E AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE NOTHING HAD PREVENTED THE ASSESS EE FROM PRODUCING IT IMMEDIATELY AT THE TIME OF SURVEYOR SUBSEQUENTLY IN POST- SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT IT H AS PRODUCED THE LEDGER OF VRL TRANSPORT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO N THAT GOODS WERE PURCHASED DURING THIS PERIOD. THE COPY OF LEDGER HA S BEEN SHOWN TO ME ALSO. THERE IS NOTHING FROM THE ACCOUNT WHICH CAN C O-RELATE IT WITH ANY OF THE PURCHASE BILLS. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ONLY PURCHASING READY-MADE GOODS BUT IS ALSO PURCHASING ITEMS OF CLOTH. IT IS NECESSARY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE LINK THE LORR Y RECEIPTS (WHICH INCIDENTALLY HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED) WITH THE BILLS IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT CERTAIN PURCHASES OF THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD HAD REMA INED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SURVEY PARTY. IF THE PURC HASES WERE MADE DURING PRE-SURVEY PERIOD, AS ALLEGED, THEN TO PROVE THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST TRIED TO CO-RELATE TH EM WITH SOME OF THE SALES MADE DURING THAT PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE SO. IF THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE SURVEY PARTY AS ALL EGED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN HE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE SAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ITO WHO HAD LED THE SURVEY PARTY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SURVEY W AS OVER OR WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD. THIS WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF T HE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NOTHING TO LOSE BY BRINGING OUT THE FACTS IN FR ONT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. INSTEAD, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO REMAIN SILE NT AND MADE THE CLAIM ONLY IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN ANY EVENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO BRING OUT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CLAIM THAT PURCHASE BILL OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAD REMAINED T O BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE THE CONTEMPORARY NATURE OF THE PURCHASE BI LL. THEREFORE, THE PRODUCTION OF PURCHASE BILLS AT A LATER DATE CAN ON LY BE CATEGORISED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT 'WHICH CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR TH E PURPOSES OF GIVING CREDIT AND EXPLAINING THE CLOSING STOCK OF T HE ASSESSEE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CERTIFIED THAT THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS CORRECT AND TRUE. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE CL AIM OF ALLEGED PURCHASES. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND ANALYZED TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE AND ALSO HAVE GIVEN CONS IDERABLE THOUGHT TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE FACTS ON RECORD DEMONSTRATE FIRST AND FOREMOST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNTS 5 ITA NO. 2456/PUN/2016 A.Y.2007-08 WHICH WERE RECORDED IN THE INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE S URVEY PARTY. HOWEVER, IT IS IN RESPECT OF THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE TO HAVE EXISTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND FOR WHICH CREDIT WAS N OT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER HINGES A ROUND. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CREDIT SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN FOR THE ALLEGED PURCHASES WHICH WERE EITHER RECORDED IN THE COMPUTER OR FOR WHICH BILLS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IN THIS RESPECT IT HAS TO BE NOT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT PRE PARED BY THE SURVEY PARTY IS CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE KNEW THAT HE WAS MAINTA INING HIS BOOKS ON TALLY SYSTEM IN THE COMPUTERS. IF THAT WAS SO THEN IT W AS HIS DUTY TO REMIND THE ATTENTION OF THE SURVEY PARTY TO THIS FACT. IF THE PU RCHASES WERE RECORDED ON COMPUTER, NO ONE HAD PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM B RINGING THE FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SURVEY PARTY. THE SAME ACTION COULD HAVE B EEN TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE BILLS WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY NOT RECORDED BY THE SURVEY PARTY. NOTHING HAD ALSO PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM BRINGING TH ESE LACUNAE TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES A ND THE DEPARTMENT AFTER THE SURVEY WAS OVER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTEMPORANEOUS. MERELY PRODUCTION OF SOME PURCHASE BILLS WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THEY EXISTED AT TH E TIME OF SURVEY. IF THE BILLS WERE AVAILABLE, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SURVEY PARTY BY PRINTING THE NECESSARY ACCOUNTS FROM THE COMPUTER AND PRODUCING THE SAME. THAT FURTHER, THE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS) HAS ALSO PERUSED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER AND THERE IS NOTHING FRO M ACCOUNT WHICH CAN CORRELATE IT WITH ANY OF THE PURCHASES BILLS. THE ASSESSE E COULD HAVE ALSO LINKED THE LORRY RECEIPTS (WHICH INCIDENTALLY HAVE NOT BEE N PRODUCED) WITH THE BILLS IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT CERTAIN PURCHASES OF THE PRE -SURVEY PERIOD HAD 6 ITA NO. 2456/PUN/2016 A.Y.2007-08 REMAINED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SURVEY PARTY . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ALLEGED THAT THESE PURCHASES BILLS WERE NOT TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT BY SURVEY PARTY. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED EITHER BEFO RE US OR BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE PURCHASE S BILLS WERE PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE D ONE BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE SURVEY. MERELY PRODUCTION OF PURCHASE BILLS AT LATER DATE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH IS THEREBY UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- R.S.SYAL PA RTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 19 TH MARCH, 2019. SB '#$%&'(' % / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, AURANGABAD. 4. THE PR. CIT-2, AURANGABAD. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , - )*+ , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 7 ITA NO. 2456/PUN/2016 A.Y.2007-08 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 9 .03 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 9 .03 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER